CCP 04-08-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved allow chickens and they didn't want to impose a hardship of telling people to get rid of the chickens, grandfathering them in indefinitely did not make sense. He stated they could limit the period of time to allow people to get into compliance within a certain number of years. This would reduce the hardship for those people. He stated that was a decision for the City Council to make though. He stated in some cases, even if the Council wanted to get away from it, they could not because it is a constitutional protected activity. He stated the question is when does an activity or use rise to the level of a constitutional activity as not all uses rose to that level. He noted regulation does not need compensation to be given where a taking would require compensation be given. He stated the City could prohibit all farming activities on a property because a property could still be used as a residential area and that was a reasonable use, so this would not be considered a taking and compensation would not need to be given. He stated for urban farming they do not need to consider constitutional entitlement or taking issue as this would not be an issue in any decision they would make. A Member stated one way approach would be that the City somehow establishes standards or guidelines and strengthens the nuisance ordinance where if someone was violating the standards that could be done, but how would something like that be done. How specific would they have to get. Mr. LeFevere stated the more specific they are the easier it is to enforce. In order to enforce something, it the regulation needed to be pretty specific. Mr. LeFevere stated he did not know if this group would have time to get into the specifics of what animals should or should not be allowed and what would constitute a nuisance with those animals. He recommended if they had some very specific ideas of what they wanted allowed or did not want allowed, to let staff know. Staff stated there was a notion that the City had an existing regulation so why as the regulation not being enforce. He indicated one of the challenges they have had specifically with the nuisance code was that on the enforcement side they had to be able to detect and document it. He stated if it was infrequent, it might be irritating, but that did not give a rise to it being a nuisance. He stated this is where the idea of putting standards in place comes up. He stated they did not want to rely only on the nuisance code for these types of issues. A Member stated the nuisance and the regulation of the nuisance needed to be well defined. Mr. LeFevere stated if something is well defined, it would be easier to regulate. A staff member noted there were various means where standards could be implemented and it did not necessarily need to be in the nuisance code. A Member noted wherever the standard would end up, the best place would be where people would be able to find it. A Member asked about exotic pet ban and where that would fit into the ordinances. He asked if they could create a strong standard within a broad scope. Mr. LeFevere responded they could do that. He stated the important thing for this group was what the community standards were and leave it up to staff to figure out where how it could be enforced and where it should be put in the ordinances. A Member asked if Mr. LeFevere was the person who went to Court for the City. Mr. LeFevere responded not if it was a criminal prosecution, but if they were suing to abate a nuisance then he would be the person going to Court or sometimes it made more sense to bring a civil action instead. For typical code violations, it would be the City's prosecutor. A Member stated he wanted to explore the public vs. private nuisance. He stated if he had goats in the City and his goats made enough odor or noise and the neighbors on two sides of him don't like his goats, but nobody else even knows he has goats, where did the threshold of public vs. private come in. He asked are some of the kinds of issues not rise to the level of a public nuisance if the effect is localized enough. Mr. LeFevere stated it might not affect very many people, but the City might still call it a public nuisance if it had an effect on property values, etc. He stated the distinction is who can sue and who can enforce something. He stated if there were a large number of people affected, there were statutes that would be enforced, but if they did not rise to that level there was a common law nuisance that gave a person the right to sue their neighbor. This would be a private nuisance, but for the City's purposes, they did not need to distinguish between a public or private nuisance. He stated public policy should not be established on a localized basis either.